Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, 5:15-cv-03698

Background

In 2013 Edward Rodriguez was detained under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150 after a mental-health episode; officers on scene asked Lori Rodriguez for the gun safe combination and seized 12 firearms (11 registered to Edward, 1 to Lori) under § 8102.
The City petitioned the state superior court under § 8102 to retain the firearms; the court found Edward a “prohibited person” and denied return; the California Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on appeal.
Plaintiffs Lori Rodriguez, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Calguns Foundation sued the City, the Police Department, and officers in federal court asserting Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and a claim under Cal. Penal Code § 33800 et seq.
Lori concedes she remains free to lawfully acquire and possess other firearms and could sell the seized guns to a licensed dealer under state law.
The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion, resolving each constitutional and statutory claim against plaintiffs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Second Amendment: Whether retention of the specific seized firearms violates the right to keep and bear arms	Lori/associations contend confiscation and non-return of the specific guns infringes Second Amendment rights	City argues Second Amendment does not guarantee right to specific firearms confiscated under § 8102, and Lori may possess other lawful firearms	Court: No Second Amendment violation; summary judgment for defendants
Fourth Amendment: Whether seizure and continued retention were unreasonable	Plaintiffs contend seizure and refusal to return firearms were unreasonable seizures	City argues seizure under § 8102 and retention after judicial proceedings were lawful and reasonable	Court: Seizure and retention reasonable; summary judgment for defendants
Fifth Amendment Takings: Whether retention is a taking requiring just compensation	Plaintiffs argue deprivation of property without compensation	City argues government lawfully acquired property under statutory authority, not a taking requiring compensation	Court: No compensable taking; summary judgment for defendants
Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process) & Penal Code remedies: Whether refusal to return firearms after appellate decision violated due process or state return procedures	Plaintiffs argue City’s refusal to return guns after appeal deprived Lori of procedural due process and statutory remedies	City argues appellate decision did not require return and state statutory return procedures remain available; Penal Code does not create an independent federal cause of action	Court: No procedural due process violation; Penal Code claim not an independent federal cause of action; summary judgment for defendants

Key Cases Cited

Samuels v. Holland Am. Line—USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2012) (organizational standing—diversion of resources and mission frustration)
Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (organizational standing framework)
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1996) (governmental forfeiture/exercise of authority does not necessarily constitute a compensable taking)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms, but scope does not necessarily extend to specific confiscated weapons)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)